Gay and Lesbian Activism With a Sense of Humor

INFO:

CONTACT:

Site Resources:

Fun Stuff:

06/14/2007

So believe it or not, the extremely gay-unfriendly, far right publication WorlNetDaily actually has a correspondent that gets to attend White House press conferences. And when this correspondent, Les Kinsolving (pic.), asks a question, you can usually expect it to be pretty nutty. Back in April of '06, Kinsolving asked of Scott McClellan:

"Since this morning's annual White House Easter Egg Roll welcomed everybody, including those wearing rainbow leis promoting their sexual orientation, will next year's event include all sexual orientations, including those wearing arm bands proclaiming that pain is pleasure, or not?"

"Did the president watch any of the Academy Awards for prostitution and sodomy last night?"

So you kind of get the idea of who he is? Well, Kinsolving continued the loopy lines of questioning yesterday, sharing this exchange with Tony Snow:

QYes, thank you, Tony. Two questions. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post both report that Dr. James Holsinger, the President's nominee for Surgeon General, has been denounced by homosexual activists, as well as by presidential candidates Edwards and Clinton, because in 1991, Dr. Holsinger wrote that sex between people of the same sex, especially men, could lead to many sexual -- serious health problems. And given the medical accuracy of the doctor's statement, what is the President's reaction to such attacks on this physician who is his nominee?

MR. SNOW: You know what? I haven't asked him about that, so I don't know.

Q Wait a minute. The National Organization of Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays has issued a statement that the denunciations of Dr. Holsinger are bigoted. The President, in supporting him, would not disagree with this, would he?

MR. SNOW: Again, I'm not going to speculate on that, Les.

Oh Les, there you go again with your silliness, acting like PFOX is actually a credible organization. And you also act like (a)Holsinger's report (pdf) is anything close to accurate and unbiased, and (b) that the report is the sole reason why gays and allies are opposing this "ex-gay" advocating nominee. Then you go on to foster the flawed idea that rejecting the notion of "reparative therapy" is somehow bigoted, and that the president should call out for support of a group who defines itself by some sort of flux sexuality that exists between the spectrum of homo and hetero?

Dude, you were twice nominated for the Pulitzer (for criticism and commentary) in the '70s! Is "Asker of inane, whacky, homophobic, baseless questions" really a greater legacy to leave behind?

**As for PFOX's aggressive attempts to make "ex-gay" a sexual orientation, we want to clarify something. If you were at one time a gay person and now you sleep with the opposite gender, then you are one of a few things:

1) Actually hetero, with your gayness just something that you were trying out
2) Still gay, just re-closeted
3) Bisexual

You are not:

1) In a transitional state that is disconnected from the medically-defined sexual orientations!

Your thoughts

I have to say its news to me that simply because I refuse to accept the idea that a few people who have made the choice to internalize hatred means that this aspect of my humanity is a choice and thus must be change, that I am now discriminating and bigoted against these people "sexual orientation." Apparently standing up for the integrity of ones life is hateful. It would seem thy have become unable to make the distinction between the choice of one individual (to go "ex-gay") and the movement they have built around it. Almost like they can't tell the actions of an individual who happens to be gay from the entire gay community.

Posted by: Patrick B | Jun 14, 2007 2:58:48 PM

Patrick: Making "ex-gays" look like a minority class to whom gays are bigoted is the game of PFOX. And honestly -- it's genius! They know that none of us on the pro-gay side of things want to be seen as bigoted, so they try and try to foster their illusion so as to catch us acting in a discriminatory fashion. To those on the outside of gay rights who don't understand the "ex-gay" movement and what it's all about, PFOX's lines can seem credible. They may not understand why we gays can't just live and let these "ex-gay" people live. That's why we try so hard to make people understand that (a) it is the dangerous political movement that we are opposing, not the individuals, and (b) "ex-gay" is in no way deserving of treatment as a minority class!